PhotoDude.com

I simply cannot see the courts taking the RIAA seriously if they persue this course. What jury would find that 14 year old guilty or want to see the father with birthday songs jailed. I suppose in the world of legal intimidation, anything might happen, but I guess I'm just naive enough to believe that sanity will prevail at some point. Interstingly, I was in the store today, looking for a CD by Liz Story, was told by the clerk it was OOP. I can't even order it. Perhaps I'll find it used on eBay or Amazon. Duh. Sale lost.

Well, in the case of a college student they sued for creating an on campus file searching program, they did offer to settle the case out-of-court ... for his life savings of $12,000. They were content to wipe him out, and be done with it. Once his story was publicized, people donated enough money to completely replace that $12,000, so I'm not certain exactly what was accomplished. Other than more bad press.

I'm ready to try and start a web wide campaign called "No CDs for Christmas" in order to hit these RIAA gangsters where they live. You want to see pain in the recording industry? Try cutting out their holiday sales. Anyone else for this effort? I'm at gvdl@cox.net.

"You want to see pain in the recording industry? Try cutting out their holiday sales." Just remember that the RIAA represents the Big Five and their subsidiaries, not the independents. As complicated as it makes it to those who would like to simplify these things, most working musicians don't record CDs for the Big Five. These campaigns sound good in theory, but in practice they really only hurt the little guy. Education regarding the differences between majors and indies is crucial before embarking on a plan like that. Also, why should the artists who do sign with one of the Big Five be boycotted? For not reneging on their multi-record deals to defect to an indie that doesn't price-gouge and hire out the RIAA to sue families of 12 year old kids? It's kind of asking a lot, isn't it? Guilt by association, I guess...

All valid points to be sure, but you've got to start somewhere. My proposal is at: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/000355.html I'm sure there will be lots of things that can be said against it, but there's something to be said for it as well. Seems to me it is a thought that is worth spreading. People will do with it what they will or not.

Gerard, I admit, there's a certain populist appeal to that idea, but as Ben points out, it's not quite that simple. For example, here's a list of the Top 100 CD's you can buy via Amazon that won't put one penny into the coffers of the Gang of Five. Including those CD's in the boycott will hurt artists and companies that have nothing to do with the lawsuits. Indeed, you can argue that the artists under contract with the Gang of Five have had no input into this litigious tactic, yet they would take a financial beating from a boycott as well. However, Ben, you also have to realize that whether anyone publicly organizes a boycott around a specific time frame, the short term effect of these lawsuits will be quite the same. The ugly PR this is going to generate over the next couple of months, all self induced by the Gang of Five, is going to set up the Holiday season so that potential music consumers enter it with a quite ugly taste in their mouths. Sales are going to decrease further in this quarter and the next due to this tactic, organized boycott or not (and one will likely happen, if not via Gerard, via Slashdot, or someone else). Indeed, it is unfair to the artists who will be affected by this decrease. But the cause is easily traceable. From a personal point of view, it's a real dilemma. I haven't bought a lot of CD's in the past year, partly due to this issue, but mostly due to a decrease in my disposable income. My money has been better put to other uses. However, as I talked about a couple of weeks ago, I was recently inspired to run out and buy a new CD. It was a major label release, and though that caused me pause, the man who recorded it deserved whatever pennies he would get from my sale. While at the store, I looked around at what else might be of interest, but like I said, it's a dilemma. Foolish me, my mind asks not only “what music would you like to buy,” but also, “who will that purchase be supporting?” In the end, I bought two used CD's, which in some ways is probably just a step above downloading ... the artist and the label get no money from that sale, just the store and the original owner who sold it to them. In other words, this whole brouhaha has brought this potential music consumer to the point of “purchase paralysis.” All due to issues other than the music itself.

I quite agree that it is not that simple, not in the slightest. And I really identify with the purchase paralysis observation that RIAA has caused. At the same time, I think that one has to make it very simple to get a complex idea across. Once you get beyond a key slogan, things get more watered down than would otherwise be the case. However, thanks to Ben's remarks here, it actually caused me to revise my position from "No CDs this Holiday Season" to "No RIAA CDs this Holiday Season." Now, as we all know, what is said or done in this medium has, because of the sheer volumen of this medium, little to no chance of every effecting anything in the real world ... unless the idea or the statement resonantes with others. All we can do is put the ideas out there and see what happens. If something does, fine. If nothing happens beyond my own personal buying decisions, that's fine too. I just think of it as my own little "cease and desist" letter to the RIAA. As a salesman once said, "I just make the phone calls. God places the orders."

Again, there's a huge difference between major labels and (truly) independent labels (i.e., those not owned by majors). "Boycott RIAA CDs" doesn't do anything to help people understand the difference. I've seen posts on message boards by people who speak with authority about analogies between the RIAA suing downloaders and music fans overturning "the RIAA's trucks." There are a lot of people out there who think they are very sure what the RIAA is and what it does, but in reality, don't have the slightest idea. To these people, the RIAA is synonymous with recorded music. Every record released is somehow controlled by the Big Five. Therefore, any CD released is putting money into the RIAA's coffers. These people aren't concerned about artists rights because they're absolutely convinced that musicians are all getting a mere few pennies per unit (highly unlikely for most); those who vocally oppose downloading are greedheads who hate their fans and kick small puppy dogs (one would assume that they're making more than "pennies" per unit as well - is there a correlation between being a cartoonish rock and roll villian and negotiating for a better royalty rate? Food for thought...). Never mind the artists' copyright ownership - again, many of us still do own our copyrights. If you don't take the time to encourage people to educate themselves, you're just spouting slogans that will ultimately hurt the little guy and hurt the RIAA and the Big Five very little, if at all.

For a long time, I have reserved my music-spending money for buying self-produced CDs at local concerts. When I download, I look for long-dead artists and artists I've actually bought music for (including tapes which, since CDs came out, are built to self-destruct; that makes me a little angry at the industry). The current, popular music I get as mp3s comes from friends, generally. This is similar to the taping of records, CDs, and tapes of family members that is how I've always expanded my eclectic collection. (I'm 23 years old, and have remained a steady 30 years [and earlier] behind in my musical tastes throughout my life.) None of this do I regard as a long-term solution that is best for society. ALL intellectual property rights need to be rethought and remade to reward the creator first of all, allow use at low, fair prices. I've been trying to think of a market solution for that unique entity, the 'idea good,' which has worth and costs work to create in the first place, but after that costs relatively nothing to reproduce. Socialists, one would think, would have a ready answer: a democratic structure representing society as a whole pays the cost of creation. Use of a song by a person might be free, total use is estimated, and the 'manufacturers' gets a check from tax dollars. I'd sort of prefer people pay something for songs and such, but this solution might be the most workable. Although it doesn't work yet, MusicLink offers a partial solution for the present (or rather near-term future). If we can achieve the kind of organization necessary, buyer co-operatives could support music directly. We need to oppose the RIAA record companies, and we need to support artists (and so recording studios etc.); but the greatest need may be for heavy thinking about intellectual property rights.